From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Mar 26 2003 - 21:58:18 MST
Barbara writes
> Democracy Now! is a national, listener-sponsored public radio and TV show,
> pioneering the largest community media collaboration in the country. The
> program was launched six years ago as the only daily election show in public
> broadcasting. Because of its success, Democracy Now! broadened its focus and
> became a national news show committed to bringing the voices of the
> marginalized to the airwaves on issues ranging from the global to the local.
May I inquire as to what their ideological bias is? Or
do they in fact have hosts from all parts of the political
spectrum, or show many reports which cannot be determined
by the most discerning viewer to be leftward or rightward
tilting?
> You can listen to their unembedded reporters online:
> http://www.democracynow.org/about.htm
>
> Meanwhile, Lee Corbin seems to be offended because Damien Broderick posted a
> link to a news story that contained reports of Iraqi casualties.
Yes, not offended so much as disappointed. There
are a very few of us on this list that wouldn't
have re-directed the partisan component of a post
to a link. I had thought that Damien was the other
one.
Still, he's far from the class of people who retort to a
posting (like Amara's today from Richard Dawkins) by
saying, "Oh yeah!? Well here's the contrary view, pal!"
> I would not presume to tell Lee or anyone else what
> their political opinions should be;
Hmm. I'm not sure how ambiguous is. My whole history on
this list, as I've supplemented with many personal anecdotes,
is that all points of view submitted in good taste are to be
respected. Of course, that does not mean "agreed with" ;-)
But I mean to say that neither side has any monopoly whatsoever
on intelligence, moral rightness, or superior knowledge. Yet
I could tell you the names of some very nice people on this
list that do not agree with that. (Certainly Damien is not
among them, and I certainly hope that you are also not.)
> but when one forms his opinions with blinders on, I
> think it's safe to say that his opinions are probably
> not consistent with reality.
Ah, if spoken carefully, then this is a very key mistake
that you are making. We *all* have ideological blinders.
Just some of us refuse to admit it, or arent'aware of it.
Some people suppose that by a miracle of God or something,
they have fortuitously been allowed by the universe to
form their opinions free of bias and prejudice. Hence,
as one notable correspondent put it on this list not so
long ago, their opponents simply don't know The Truth.
He was perfectly serious. In repeated encounters, he
claimed to be in absolute possession of the truth, and
that it was objectively true that all the people from
the other side had provably bad or wrong value systems,
and had opinions that were refutably as mistaken as if
they were claiming that 2+2=5.
Your statement above appears at first reading to place
you in the same category as he. Might you go into a
little detail about that, perhaps saying something about
your life history, and how it was through some chance of
genes and environment that your views *are* consistent
with reality, while those of your opposite numbers on
the other side of the ideological divide are not?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 26 2003 - 21:58:32 MST